Robin McAlpine: Nationalism – a trade union for the people

I'VE argued a couple of times recently that while I recognise Ruth Davidson's skills, I'm also very conscious of what seem to me to be her limitations. This week, as she took a shot at intellectualism, she clearly reached those limitations.

I don't want to argue that she was wrong or silly because that's been done. I want to argue that it is for the independence movement to challenge her "thinking" (quote marks very much needed) by giving stronger and more coherent meaning to the philosophy of our cause.

Let me start with her arguments. She works from the wearisome unionist argument that supporting existing nation states is not nationalism but supporting new nation states is.

Had Davidson considered doing a little light reading in preparation for her talk she might have come across the core academic theories of nationalism. Probably the three most important are Ernst Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Tom Nairn (though there are more recent theories, too).

Very loosely, Gellner sees nationalism as when political administration and cultural-linguistic identity cover the same space – and he sees it as a direct outcome of modernity. When you get to complex modern society, the management of those societies is more stable when the politics and the 'people' overlap, unlike, for example, in an empire.

Nairn, too, sees nationalism as a kind of response to imperialism in which people respond to external political rule by emphasising cultural signals that they are more than just a bureaucratic outpost of someone else's empire.

Anderson has perhaps the best known theory in 'imagined communities' – the idea that what nations really are is a group of people who are only loosely connected, 'imagining' themselves to be in an extended community held together by culture and symbolism.

The reason that British nationalists (like Ruth Davidson) get away with the abuse of the language of nationalism is largely because the British media has bought into the myth of 'non-nationalist' Britain as much as anyone.

You can read loads more about all of this – but as far as I can tell if you've got this far you've already read more than Davidson.

Here's the crucial point – while all writers on the subject identify many kinds and variations of nationalism, the British unionist theory that only 'secession nationalism' (non-nations that want to be nations) is nationalism and that already-existing nationalism is actually patriotism is supported by no serious theorist that I know of.

This is even harder to sustain when Britain is undergoing a process of largely culturally-driven secession (from the European Union). When Ruth Davidson proposes a European government with standardised public holidays, laws, regulations, school curriculums and so on, when she calls for the abolition of a national army and the union flag and an end to the word 'British', then she can lecture Scots about her commitment to battling nationalism.

Because here's the thing – there is more or less no person in the world who is not wholly reliant on and deeply committed to the nation state system. I get deeply irritated by the 'citizen of the world' crowd who, hypocritically, expect someone else's nation state to provide the police to protect their MacBooks as they check into a hotel in someone else's country using someone else's roads paid for by someone else's nation state raising taxes on their population.

If you are a fascist, an anarcho-syndicalist, a theocrat or a believer in undemocratic kingdoms or empires, or of a single world government, then you have taken a legitimate position from which to attack nationalism. Everyone else is some kind of nationalist.

Now there are many kinds of nationalism which can be grouped roughly into three categories (though there is crossover). Civic nationalism is best understood as 'territorial democracy' – here's a territory, here's who lives in it, they all get to chose how it is governed.

Cultural nationalism is based on history, culture, language, art and symbolism. In differing ways it sees a historical and cultural difference between one place and another and in differing ways wants to celebrate and protect that difference.

Ethnic nationalism sees the nation state as the expression of genetic determinism linked to geographical destiny – the 'blood and soil' model.

In theory, this is a spectrum from 'totally inclusive' to 'totally exclusive', but in reality Britain's 'civic nationalism' could easily be seen to be more exclusionary than the Republic of Ireland's 'cultural nationalism'. Then again, the point of an 'imagined community' is that you're free to imagine that you are whatever you want to be.

This is why Britain – one of the most nationalist countries in Europe – is allowed to imagine itself to be not nationalist at all. That is one of its nationalist myths.

Let me define my nationalism and make a plea that the independence movement has the courage and vision to debate its nationalism (while pressing the unionists to define theirs).

This stuff is all endlessly complicated and permanently negotiable. For example, I'm pretty sure there are some of you who think my typification of Britain as civic and Ireland as cultural is wrong, while others will agree.

The reason that British nationalists (like Ruth Davidson) get away with the abuse of the language of nationalism is largely because the British media has bought into the myth of 'non-nationalist' Britain as much as anyone. They think the massive amount of money spent on promoting the monarchy in recent years is 'just a bit of fun'.

Watch this brilliant short video. It takes audio of the BBC's coverage of a North Korean public celebration and imposes it on top of the BBC's coverage of the Queen's 90thbirthday. It very elegantly exposes the British nationalist propaganda model, its hypocrisy and its patronising attitude towards others.

But it's also because the Scottish independence movement has been completely bullied out of a real debate about the nature of its own nationalism. So bullied that the current leader of the party of Scottish independence seems deeply uncomfortable with any hint that she might in fact be a nationalist.

So let me define my nationalism and make a plea that the independence movement has the courage and vision to debate its nationalism (while pressing the unionists to define theirs).

I believe that the democratic, universal nation state is the highest form of human civilisation we have ever achieved. To create a system where people who will never meet are joined in a shared project to give up their own income through tax to create a society which is good for everyone is as good as humans get in large numbers.

I believe that not every group of people will necessarily wish to pursue exactly the same collective project, so I believe that nations not only can be different but should be different.

I therefore believe that nation states should be structured such as to best give their citizens the maximum chance of achieving the kind of national project they wish to pursue, but still be of a sufficient scale to respond to the complex challenges of the modern world. Smaller nations have regularly (and predictably) been shown to achieve this better than large nations.

I will always be a critic and never a patriot. It is not nationalism but patriotism that asks me to remain silent in the face of my nation's victimisation of the citizens of other nations.

This means that I believe nationalism is a function of people – that the nation state is explicitly a contract between each of its citizens, and not a contract between individuals and 'the state'.

However, I believe that patriotism is instead a function of power and institutions. You are patriotic to an army or a Queen or a system. It is an act of subservience to power. I believe that patriotism is a force for bad, that demands unquestioning loyalty, even in the face of evil ('that's our troops in a horrific and illegal war started by us – so time to stop criticising').

I will always be a critic and never a patriot. It is not nationalism but patriotism that asks me to remain silent in the face of my nation's victimisation of the citizens of other nations. No nationalist ever asked me to be silent about the plight of other peoples; patriots do it all the time.

I reject entirely and completely any idea that a nation state is a genetic expression. It is a circle drawn consensually (hopefully...) on a map. Its 'people' is simply everyone who lives inside the circle – how they got there or their genetic (or any other) attribute is irrelevant.

But I embrace cultural nationalism. The United States of McDonalds and Apple and Google with its bland, characterless architecture and branding and styling and sound has infected the world with a regimented uniformity in a way no 'nationalist dictator' has ever managed.

I reject entirely and completely any idea that a nation state is a genetic expression. It is a circle drawn consensually (hopefully...) on a map. Its 'people' is simply everyone who lives inside the circle.

I love – really, really love – cultural difference. I go on holiday not for sun but for place. I want those places to stay as culturally distinct and unique as is possible. The best way to protect different national cultures is through cultural nationalism which need in no way be a game of 'better and worse'.

For me, nationalism is a tool to balance the overwhelming influence of the very powerful and very rich (a group now dominated by transnational corporations) with the power of citizens collectively and individually. It is like a trade union for the people in the face of the overwhelming political, social and environmental control being exerted on us by commercial interests.

Nationalism is a commitment to a place. It is a belief that the place in which you live is a place worth saving for your children. Globalisation has shown no care for the environment which for it is a consumable. Only the nation has the longitudinal desire to protect place from power. If I'm ever patriotic it is to our trees and burns and glens. They deserve to exist for longer than Google.

And I think that about covers it. I have no qualms about describing myself as a nationalist, both civic and cultural. I think it is simply an honest description of what I am. It's also the honest description of everyone else in Britain (and Europe, and the developed world).

The question isn't whether we're nationalists, but what we mean by that. Ruth Davidson's description of her nationalism is severely wanting.

The question isn't whether we're nationalists, but what we mean by that. Ruth Davidson's description of her nationalism is severely wanting. Like all the worst nationalists, she wants you to focus not on her ingroup but someone else's outgroup. If you support independence for Scotland, you're Ruth's outgroup.

Comments

MauriceBishop

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 16:49

Robin, would you agree that if we are to have another independence referendum it should be structured so as to permit local government areas to chose if they want to be part of independent Scotland or instead remain part of the Union? Results from last time:
*Orkney, No, 67.2%
*Borders, No, 66.6%
*Dumfries and Galloway, No, 65.7%
*Shetland, No, 63.7%

rosspriory

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 18:05

Robin, refer to Kevin McKenna's (The National) crushing of Davidson's attempt as a pretendy intellectual.

Also...

Westminster, Scottish Question Time; Every person in Scotland should be forced to watch David Mundell at the despatch box. It is a pathetic excuse of a man, totally out of his depth, trying to perform as an MP and ...wait for it...

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND

Dear all, have a look at April's session in the Palace of Westminster. A total embarrassment.

For years Cameron and May told Milliband and Corbin that they are/were useless. And they are/were. We must do the same with Mundell and Davidson as far as looking after Scottish interests are concerned

kimberley cadden

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 18:40

Brilliant article, as always. I've been wanting to read something like this for about three years(!). We need to own our nationalism for the progressive actuality that it is. I hope this reverberates right around the movement.

Arthur Blue

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 19:21

Would that extend to letting some English areas joining Scotland in independence from Westminster , Maurice ?

Geejay

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 20:38

Davidson's lecture, intellectually impoverished though it was, is part of a greater "plan" to use the language to demonise and ultimately de-legitimise aspirations for Scottish Independence. Hence her characterisation (in simple terms) of Nationalism = Bad and Patriotism = Good. And May's vilification of us as "wreckers and saboteurs". This kind of language is pure lying propaganda of the kind we saw last century and again more recently with the likes of "axis of evil".

They are trying to define the terms of the argument and as Robin says we need to fight back and define our project as something that is enlightening, uplifting and worth striving for.

MauriceBishop

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 20:51

@Arthur Blue

Sure. Why not?

MauriceBishop

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 20:53

@Geejay

"we need to fight back and define our project as something that is enlightening, uplifting and worth striving for."

More hot air of this sort is the last thing anyone in Scotland needs to hear.

What is needed is the basic outlines of what the economics of Scotland would be and an answer to the currency question, so that Scots can think about what independence might cost themselves and their children and grandchildren, so they can decide if the benefits for themselves and their children and grandchildren are worth it.

But a local government government area is just that, a local government area. The issue of Independence is about nations. Are you arguing that those areas are not culturally Scottish?

MauriceBishop

Fri, 05/19/2017 - 23:20

@N81L
From the article: "what nations really are is a group of people who are only loosely connected, 'imagining' themselves to be in an extended community held together by culture and symbolism"

So if there are local government areas where 60% of the voters cannot imagine themselves as part of the extended community that the separatists so devoutly wish for, why would it be right to stop them from remaining part of the extended community that they currently are part of?

N81L

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 03:31

Scotland is a clearly defined country, it is defined under Scots law, within the present devolved system within the UK. It is that law which applies in those local authority areas. They are within the construct that is Scotland. Looking at political and legal theory on the idea of self determinism as far as I can see, Scotland would be recognised internationally as a newly independent nation after a legally held referendum. As these parts of Scotland are within Scotland then they would be part of an independent Scotland. There is no mechanism at this stage for them to cease being Scottish and suddenly become English. It would be for them in the future to then secede from Scotland.

peterabell

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 11:32

May I also recommend Ernest Renan's lecture 'What is a nation?',

geacher

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 11:50

"But it's also because the Scottish independence movement has been completely bullied.......... So bullied that the current leader of the party of Scottish independence seems deeply uncomfortable with any hint that she might in fact be a nationalist."
Not so.... the leader of the party is belatedly aware that she has misread the mood of the Scottish people over brexit AND indyref2 and is swiftly backpedalling so as to try to persuade the electorate that this GE coming up is not about the country's lack of support for losing divisive referendum but is about whether or not we want the hated Tories (boo! hiss!) to rule us, or the cuddly friendly SNP. But May has (again) outwitted Sturgeon by putting the matter of indyref2 in the Tory manifesto, so in Scotland at least, this will be all about the desire for another referendum.
The index spread betters have put the total SNP seats at 45-47, and this equates to (roughly) 43% of the total vote. May will then turn round and say "See? There is no public desire for indyref2" Meanwhile the nationalist writers will churn out anti Tory dogma -see McKenna in today's Herald- because there is nothing positive that they can write about separation. Set and match to Theresa May.

Geejay

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 14:18

@Geacher, I think the popular vote (in the UK & even more so in Scotland) will also allow us to say there is no public desire for a Tory Government. The present one was elected on around 35%, and when you take account of those who didn't vote, it is an even smaller percentage of eligible voters. The SNP support proportional representation, the totalitarian parties, such as Tory and Labour, prefer the corrupt FPTP because it virtually ensures one of them will get into power and then be able to do as they like, such as fart in the face of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

MauriceBishop

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 14:35

@N81L
So what? The UK is also clearly and legally defined. If you accept that it can be broken up then what is your moral case for saying that Orkney, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Shetland - four areas that are adamantly No - have to go with the new entity rather than stay with the old?

MauriceBishop

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 14:37

@ peterabell

It isn't partition. It is letting people decide for themselves.

MauriceBishop

Sat, 05/20/2017 - 15:48

@Geejay
"fart in the face of the Fixed Term Parliament Act"
I will leave aside the question of why you would want to be so crude and move onto the substance.

The FTPA requires that the House consent to its dissolution. And the PM asked for and received that consent. So what was done wrong? What are you objecting to?

I can understand that you are probably disgusted that the SNP didn't have the courage to vote No and to work with others at Westminster to prevent the PM from having her request granted. But then it should be them that is the focus of your ire.